Continuation of selfies . .. ... .... ..... monogamy debunked

[masticate]

So, yes, that's exactly what you're claiming. If you really think you've debunked anything, you're a fu​cking tool.

But you haven't done anything to prove this, you're just constantly calling me names. Even if your terminology of "falsified" is adequately applied in this instance, so what... you still haven't actually applied it adequately.

Name calling does not equal proof or being right it is called bullying. What's with that? Can't you stop?

You wanted me to cut out the long posts so I did. You wanted me to cut out the intellectual psycho-babble so I did. What is your problem, exactly, besides being a miserable twat?

Why am I receiving infractions for retaliating to accusations or attacking people's ideas but everybody else is continually getting away with making personal attacks against me? There is no intellectual integrity in this kind of debate; it's a really more of a cattle-walk.

Why are you continually perpetuating this abuse? (unless it's some ironic form of punishment where you feel I've 'abused' my girlfriend so I will be subjected to merciless abuse here until I repent- that's pretty much what I'm waiting for here... more accusations and conjecture)

[KingZ]

Ha, idiot. You're the one making a claim; you're the one that has the burden of proof.

[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof[/url]

You're receiving infractions because nobody likes you.

[masticate]

Ha, idiot. You're the one making a claim; you're the one that has the burden of proof.

Philosophic_burden_of_proof

You're receiving infractions because nobody likes you.

I see..

OK well the burden of proof was indeed mine, and I did indeed supply my rationale for evaluation.

I have filled my end of the bargain. You, as the person arguing with me, have the burden of proving your points rather than just calling me names. You can call me an idiot a thousand times, and although you might be somebody here, and you will have your 'thanks' and support, you are actually hollow and empty until you put some real thought into this.

Re: infractions - so it has nothing to do with intellectual integrity at all; it is a popularity thing. I get it. OK!~

[KingZ]

OK well the burden of proof was indeed mine, and I did indeed supply my rationale for evaluation.

I have filled my end of the bargain.

You did not.

[masticate]

You did not.

It is a basic human right to form emotional and physical bonds with other humans and a relationship that infringes on this is therefore an infringement on your basic rights.

This is my proof, in a sentence.

This is what's known as a primary axiom from which inductive reasoning may commence.

[KingZ]

Right, except that's a load of shit. Relationships don't infringe on any right. Your ex-girlfriend was perfectly within her right to show her tits to whoever she wanted, but a rational person would have chosen not to, because it would have resulted in the pain of others.

Similarly: "it is a basic human right to work for any company he choses to. Therefore, a company that has an exclusivity clause in their contract is infringing on his basic rights."

Do you see the flaw? You can still do whatever you want, but you have to face the consequences.

Try again, junior.

[masticate]

Try again, junior.

Ok...

Right, except that's a load of shit. Relationships don't infringe on any right. Your ex-girlfriend was perfectly within her right to show her tits to whoever she wanted, but a rational person would have chosen not to, because it would have resulted in the pain of others.

I never said she acted outside of her rights, what gave you that idea?. That's exactly my rationale: she WAS within her rights to send pictures of her tits so WHY would I even try to ask her not to? Your remarks that a 'rational' person would not have done this, have ignored the concept that she was feeling starved for attention, and thus behaved rationally.

Similarly: "it is a basic human right to work for any company he choses to. Therefore, a company that has an exclusivity clause in their contract is infringing on his basic rights."

I disagree this is a basic human right. It's not a right to work for whomever you want (I don't have the right to be the US president) but it is a right to form emotional bonds with people (I have the right to fall in love with the US president). They are not really the same thing, are they?? No, they are not; here you have failed, but I appreciate the effort, also that you have calmed down with the abusive namecalling. At least now you're calling my ideas shit rather than attacking me personally. That makes sense to me.

Do you see the flaw? You can still do whatever you want, but you have to face the consequences.

Exactly. You CAN ALWAYS do whatever you want to. That's not a flaw in my reasoning it's the CRUX of my argument. It's the one moral principle that I'm anchoring to in order to induct all other moral claims. Do you see the flaw?

Facing consequences - fine... monogamy places consequences on people who exercise this right, whereas polyamory does not. Therefore, monogamy is immoral.

Try again, junior.

yeah...

[KingZ]

I never said she acted outside of her rights, what gave you that idea?. That's exactly my rationale: she WAS within her rights to send pictures of her tits so WHY would I even try to ask her not to? Your remarks that a 'rational' person would not have done this, have ignored the concept that she was feeling starved for attention, and thus behaved rationally.

No, the rational decision would have been to dump your ass.

It's not a right to work for whomever you want (I don't have the right to be the US president) but it is a right to form emotional bonds with people (I have the right to fall in love with the US president).

You have the right to be the US president. You may not necessarily be able to, but you have the right to try.

[HeartIsAching]

Successful troll is successful.

[masticate]

No, the rational decision would have been to dump your ass.

Based on the principles of monogamy perhaps, which are inherently immoral. Let's talk more about what rationality is...

Rationality is the quality or state of being reasonable, based on facts or reason. (from Wikipedia of course)

She wanted something she didn't have,
she got it.

Ergo, rational.

You have the right to be the US president. You may not necessarily be able to, but you have the right to try.

To be the US president one must be born in the USA, have lived in the USA for the a total of at least 14 years, and be over 35 years of age. Everybody who fits that description has the right to be president. Considering 98-99% of humanity does not qualify, I wouldn't call it a basic human right, and I'm surprised you're continuing on with this ridiculous example.

- - - Updated - - -

Pursuant to this discussion as a whole, we now have a working definition of "rationality" so I may reiterate why I believe monogamy is irrational.

The facts are that it's impossible to ask somebody to be exclusive and expect them to actually be exclusive. You can hope, you can judge, you can pray,.... what you can not RATIONALLY do is EXPECT somebody to be exclusive. That is OUTSIDE of the bounds of rationality and thus irrational.

The only rational thing a person can do is inform their partner of their feelings and act on their convictions.

[KingZ]

To be the US president one must be born in the USA, have lived in the USA for the a total of at least 14 years, and be over 35 years of age. Everybody who fits that description has the right to be president. Considering 98-99% of humanity does not qualify, I wouldn't call it a basic human right, and I'm surprised you're continuing on with this ridiculous example.

lol, moron. We aren't talking about legal right, we're talking about ethical right. You have the ethical right because you aren't harming anyone by pursuing it.

[masticate]

Ok I see what you're saying and I will think about it.

I believe that you're equating the right to love another person (including the US president), to the right to work for whomever you want (including the US government).

So if it is inherently immoral to demand monogamy it is also inherently immoral to demand exclusivity to a job.

I guess... if this really is what you're telling me, then I agree.

Fortunately, I have no respect for the concept of staying loyal to a job so this really doesn't contradict my own personal morality at all and I can successfully incorporate your reasoning.

[KingZ]

Fortunately, I have no respect for the concept of staying loyal to a job so this really doesn't contradict my own personal morality at all and I can successfully incorporate your reasoning.

That's exactly my point. Nobody is forcing you to stay loyal to a job, the same way nobody is forcing you to stay loyal to a romantic partner. But if you choose to stay loyal, it's not immoral. Agreeing to exclusivity isn't immoral. Did this really need to be spelled out for you?

[masticate]

That's exactly my point. Nobody is forcing you to stay loyal to a job, the same way nobody is forcing you to stay loyal to a romantic partner. But if you choose to stay loyal, it's not immoral. Agreeing to exclusivity isn't immoral. Did this really need to be spelled out for you?

Agreeing or... more appropriately, "CHOOSING" to be exclusive isn't immoral, indeed. I didn't say that. I said it was irrational.

Requiring exclusivity is immoral. Believing that you have the ability (to apply force to a certain end), is irrational. The only way to force somebody not to do something is to cage./shackle./restrain them in some way which is immoral.

[KingZ]

OK, so if agreeing to exclusivity isn't immoral, two people who agree to be monogamous can do so without hurting anyone, and you realize that, what the fu​ck are you even talking about?